PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one Pritam Singh against the decision of the High Court of Punjab at Simla, upholding his conviction on the charge of murder of one Buta Singh and confirming the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. The prosecution case, which has been found to be substantiaily true by both the trial Judge and the High Court may be shortly stated as follows:

(2.) On 28th December 1948, Pritam Singh had made indecent overtures to one Punni wife of Kakarra Chamar, who had been brought into the village by Buta Singh, the deceased about 10 or 12 years ago. Buta Singh, on learning of this incident, spoke to Pritam Singh, but finding that his attitude was uncompromising, he advised Kakarra to go to the police station to report the matter. On the next day, while Kakarra was going to the police station, Mal Singh, the first prosecution witness in the case, brought him back telling him that Pritam Singh had apologized and the matter should not be pursued. On 30th December, at about 5 P.M. just when Buta Singh name out of his house, Pritam Singh came up with a double barrelled 12 bore gun and shot him in the abdomen, and Buta Singh died a short time thereafter. Shortly after the occurrence, Punjab Singh and Nal Singh who had both witnessed the occurrence, want to the police station at Abohar, which, is at a distance of 13 miles from the place of occurrence, and lodged the first information report regarding the murder. In this report, Punjab Singh reported the facts as already stated, but he also added that Pritam Singh was drunk when he fired the gun and his younger brother, Hakim Singh, who was also drunk was standing at a short distance from him and shouting "Kill, don't care." None of the other witnesses however, supported Punjab Singh as to the part attributed by him to Hakim Singh or as to the drunken condition of the appellant or Hakim Singh and the period after due investigation of the case sent up a charge sheet against the appellant only. The appellant was thereafter put on his trial before the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution witnesses, of whom five were eye witnesses, viz. Punjab Singh, his brother, Mitta Singh. Mal Singh, Nikka Singh ( brother of Mal Singh), and Mt Phoolan, mother of the deceased, came to the conclusion, in agreement with four assessors who were present at the trial, that the version given by the prosecution witnesses was substantially true. In support of his conclusion, he referred to the following facts among others : (1) that the first information report had been lodged at the police station without any delay (2) that the names of at least four of the alleged eye -witnesses were mentioned in the report, and (3) that no sufficient reason had been shown as to why the prosecution witnesses should have conspired to falsely implicate the accused in a murder case, if he had been innocent. The High Court on appeal agreed with the Sessions Judge, and the learned Judge who delivered the judgment of the High Court observed as follows in the concluding part of his judgment :

(3.) The appellant thereafter obtained special leave to appeal to this Court, and Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel appearing for him, has in support of the appeal, addressed to us very elaborate arguments to show that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is not correct. He has argued that the alleged eye witnesses were intimately connected with each other and with the deceased, that they and the accused belonged to two mutually hostile factions, that these witnesses had made discrepant statements as to the respective places from where they claimed to have seen the occurrence, some of them making discrepant statements about their own position before the police officer who drew up the plan of the scene of occurrence and before the trial Court and also making discrepant statements about the position of the other witnesses, and that they should not be held to be truthful witnesses inasmuch as they had denied certain previous statements made by them either before the police or before the Committing Magistrate. Mr. Sethi also put forward the theory, which has been discredited by both the Courts below on grounds which prime facie do not appear to be unreasonable, that the occurrence must have taken place late at night, that there were probably no eye witnesses to identify the real assailant and that the appellant had been falsely implicated on account of enmity.